Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

XHTML/CSS Validation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Floris
    replied
    It is important enough to take interest in .. slowly updating old sites from html 3.2 to xhtml/css improves performance, and the total site view. It is important enough to keep an eye on, recently I created a site for a friend and it shows 99,5% the same in all browsers (top5, latest version) and that was quite amazing, especially since I didn't try that hard to be compliant.

    Note to mental people who are insane about every <tag />:
    w3.org isn't a requirement, it is a recommendation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tolitz
    replied
    Originally posted by Andrew111888
    Anyway, how important is XHTML/CSS validity to you?
    I don't lose sleep over it

    Leave a comment:


  • Noiz Pollution
    replied
    Please tell me this old arguement isn't going to flare up again?
    Personally I prefer to build a page using a combination of both tables and CSS, the tables defining the main structure of the page and the CSS elements tweaking each individual part. CSS by itself just seems more difficult to keep control over, especially accross different browsers.

    If I have to write a page for viewing on a PDA I'll put a browser detect in my PHP.


    Cheers,
    Robert

    Leave a comment:


  • jamslam
    replied
    Originally posted by megahard
    I think people get way too aroused over their site not using tables, it's hardly curing world hunger is it
    You're forgetting about the growing audience that uses PDAs, cell phones, and even devices that read web pages to them.

    On smaller screens such as PDAs and Cell Phones, CSS designed sites are much more accessible.

    The more and more people that are converting to CSS layouts are only helping to progress further technologies. As if we stick with one thing forever, the demand for something more effective will lessen, just because "it works for me".

    I've been using CSS to design layouts for so long, that using tables for a layout would be more difficult for me. As when you start nesting 3, 4, or 5 tables, things get complicated and it makes a page much harder to update. Tables are also harder to manipulate exactly to your liking- compared to a CSS layout.

    And one final factor, tables are slower

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrew111888
    replied
    I actually found it EASIER to use no tables the first time around than I thought it was to use tables, and I've been using tables for over a year.

    Leave a comment:


  • megahard
    replied
    I think I will stick to tables

    Leave a comment:


  • CeleronXT
    replied
    Originally posted by megahard
    table-less designs just take ages to make
    Only if you don't know how to do it. If you do, it's far faster. (Of course that depends on how complex you get, but I'm thinking a fairly complex layout....)

    Leave a comment:


  • megahard
    replied
    I just find it a lot faster to use tables, table-less designs just take ages to make

    My site still works in every browser I've downloaded though

    I think people get way too aroused over their site not using tables, it's hardly curing world hunger is it


    P.S. Daemon your forum is so incredibly difficult to read and make sense of, there's just bits all over the place, and then all the threads and posts are crammed into the end of a table
    Last edited by megahard; Tue 14th Sep '04, 1:30pm.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamslam
    replied
    I always code in XHTML 1.0 Strict...

    I am really excited for XHTML 2.0 though... Maybe too excited, as it won't be going mainstream for many years to come...

    There are plenty of table-free designs that work quite nicely in Internet Explorer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrew111888
    replied
    Originally posted by MrNase
    What I really hate are those W3 Buttons.. They are too large and really ugly. Why would you use them? You should not be proud of valid code. Valid code is a matter of course.
    You're allowed to make custom ones.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrNase
    replied
    What I really hate are those W3 Buttons.. They are too large and really ugly. Why would you use them? You should not be proud of valid code. Valid code is a matter of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • Neocorteqz
    replied
    i made mine XHTML 1.0 complient, I just have to work on the css now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mainer82
    replied
    I haven't found a site that doesn't render a tabless design yet...

    Anyways, I try to do all my sites, hacks, etc in XHTML.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrNase
    replied
    Originally posted by Brad.loo
    While it is important, there is also no scence in following a standard that your clients have no support for. If it works in everything you throw at it odd's are it will be used reguardless of standards.
    So true

    XHTML 1.0 Transitional should be the new standard but for obvious reasons it isn't at the moment. Many webdevelopers now understand the benefits of XHTML but you can't go for a table-free design which is not fully supported by the Internet Explorer.

    Leave a comment:


  • daemon
    replied
    I think that everything should be made into XHTML 1.0 Transitional. Most everything I do is in that doctype. But for an added challenge when I was designing my blog application, I made it XHTML 1.1 and table-free. Turned out quite well.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X